SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
MOSCOW — If Russia once maintained at least a semblance of distance from President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, it rushed to his defense after the American missile strike ordered by President Trump on Thursday. The attack cemented Moscow more closely than ever to the notorious Syrian autocrat.
Even as the United States condemned Mr. Assad for gassing his own citizens and held Russia partly responsible, given its 2013 promise to rid Syria of chemical weapons, the Kremlin kept denying that Syria had any such capability.
By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration to end the conflict on his terms.
"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." Attributed to Abraham Maslow.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Thexalon on Monday April 10 2017, @01:54PM (7 children)
He's already got a port that gets him access to the Mediterranean, in Crimea. No, I'm pretty sure he's fighting for the defense of an allied nation against internal rebellion and foreign aggressors. Just like the US is in Yemen.
The fact that Assad is still in power after a half-dozen rebel groups and ISIS and the US have spent years trying to force him out means he's either not an idiot, or very very lucky.
By spending $100 million on missile strikes that had no appreciable effect [thedrive.com]?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Touché) by captain normal on Monday April 10 2017, @04:39PM (3 children)
Eh...Crimea is on the Black Sea. The only outlet from there to the Mediterranean is through the Bosporus.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 10 2017, @10:06PM (2 children)
Of course Crimea isn't on the Mediterranean. That hasn't put any kind of dent in the ability of the Russian navy to get to the Mediterranean.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Monday April 10 2017, @10:19PM
Has the US been conducting "freedom of navigation" patrols in the Bosphorus to protect the Russian Navy from the outrageous unchecked construction conducted by the Turkish along the strait?
Asking for a Chinese friend.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 10 2017, @10:23PM
Of course Crimea isn't on the Mediterranean. That hasn't put any kind of dent in the ability of the Russian navy to get to the Mediterranean.
Why do you say that? Bosporus Strait in the hands of a foe would be an impassible bottleneck should things come to a shooting war.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AudioGuy on Monday April 10 2017, @11:07PM (2 children)
Lets have a look at the sequence of events.
Trump position - he campaigned on 'no regime change wars'. This position is also visible in various public talk show appearances going back 15-20 years, so is probably sincere.
Putin position - Initially criticised Assad publicly, blaming Assads problems on his lack of properly taking care of his people, even suggested some constitutional changes. But made it clear he does not believe in regime change wars either. When the US initially started supporting so called 'moderates' like Al Nusra/Al Queda, he criticised this, saying this would lead to a mess as ALL these groups were terrorists. He said 'FIRST stop the terorism, THEN deal with Assad.'
Assad has publicly said he will hold elections as soon as the terrorists are gone.
Obama seemed content to let Russia, Iran, etc mostly handle this, and so did Trump apparently. The US position was still suportive of regime change, but this was not pressed. Russia and Iran want Assad to stay. The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all want Assad gone, each for different reasons.
Great progress was made in removing ISIS by all parties. Russia had some peace talks beginning.
Recently, support for the so-called 'moderate' terrorists was stopped by US.
A bit later, there were speeches by State (Tillerson) and our UN rep stating that 'regime change was not a priority'.
At this point, from Assads point of view, he was in the best position he had ever been in. ISIS was on the run. The US had publicly apparently changed its poition to not require 'regime change'. And he had multiple forces helping him rid his country of terrorists.
-At this exact point-, within 48 hours of the apparent US change in position, he decides to use gas, a move guaranted to piss off the US and probably Russia as well. If this is true he has to be the dumbest dictator to ever live.
There has been determinations that both Assad and various terrorists have used gas in the past by an independent UN monitor. So it is not necessarily certain immediately who used gas.
Despite this, instead of allowing the the UN to investigate as in the past, the US press goes into full bore warmongering mode within hours, blaming Assad and calling for action. And full propaganda mode, with pictures of dead babies etc.
The US state department and UN rep suddenly reverse position, and begin calling for regime change.
Trump makes a speech in full war propaganda mode, cute dead babies, etc. Also reversing his position.
Now at this point I would have expected the US to contact Russia, which they already had both human contact and intelligence contact with on the battlefield, and show them the evidence of Assads chemical attack, and inform them of our response. Since Syria is Russias ally, this would be a sensible thing to do to try to avoid problems.
Instead, a missile strike is ordered, with Russia given just one hour to get their people out. This seems absolutely guaranteed to piss them off as much as possible without actually causing an incident that would force a retaliation (because of dead Russians).
The missiles come not from bombers but from two recently positioned US warships, suggesting the possiblility of pre-planning.
The people on the ground able to report on the inital gas attack are our 'moderates' (who recentlly lost funding), and the so-called 'White Hats' who are funded by the US, and whose neutrality has been seriously questioned.
To me, this just REEKS of a possible false flag operation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:15PM (1 child)
Assad has publicly said he will hold elections as soon as the terrorists are gone.
Anyone who believes that isn't just willfully ignorant, they are living in an alternate reality.
There is not one single middle-eastern dictator who has ever run an even remotely fair election.
That's what the Arab Spring was all about FFS.
I have no idea about the factual nature of half of the other things you've posited, but you sure wrecked your credibility with that one.
(Score: 2) by AudioGuy on Tuesday April 11 2017, @07:27PM
My intended point was that it provides leverage for later action to insure that promise is kept. Which I did not make clear.
My personal opinion is that Putin had the right idea, deal with the terrorists first, then deal with Assad. There is no doubt he needs to go, but -how- he goes may be the difference in creating chaos there or a stable government.